beta
Text
The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.
Reasons
1. The Defendant, who is not a narcotics handler, did not deal with the clopulon (the copon, the copon, the copon; hereinafter “copon”), which is a local mental medicine, but traded copon as follows.
1. On June 30, 2016, at around 03:50, the Defendant purchased approximately KRW 0.4g 20,000,00 from E in front of the D Park toilet located in Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Nam-gu.
2. On September 28, 2016, the Defendant purchased approximately KRW 0.8g 400,000,000,000 from E, on the front road of the Seoul Southern-gu Incheon Metropolitan Government F Loans.
3. On December 13, 2016, at around 22:50, the Defendant purchased approximately KRW 0.3g of opon from E from “H singing room” located in Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Nam-gu, Seoul, for approximately 1.50,00 won.
2. Determination
A. E sold phiphones to the Defendant at the time and place indicated in the facts charged on the basis of financial transactions and currency transactions with Defendant, and the location value of the base station at the time of currency, etc.
In light of the circumstances such as the fact that the defendant stated in the facts charged in this case, the defendant recognized the fact that he met E around the time and time of the investigation, the fact that a large quantity of disposables was found in the dwelling and home of the defendant, and the 21st of the injection devices was detected, and the 8 of the injection devices, from which phiphones were detected, the defendant's blood trace was detected, it is true that there is considerable doubt as to whether the defendant purchased phiphones from E in order to administer phiphones, such as written in the facts charged.
B. However, in a criminal trial, the recognition of criminal facts ought to be based on strict evidence with probative value, which makes a judge not to have any reasonable doubt. Therefore, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof does not reach the degree of confiscing such conviction, even if there are doubtful suspicions of guilt, such as inconsistency with the Defendant’s assertion or defense or uncomfortable dismissal, it shall be determined in the interests of the Defendant.